Thread: Strike against Syria

Originally Posted by gugi

I understand that you don't like the guy, but you're really trying too hard to twist something obvious into something that it isn't.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The world didn't use to be what it is today - every country felt rape and pillage is their unalienable right every time they could afford it. But at some point most powers that be agreed that that's not going to be the preferred way of doing business anymore, so there's all kinds of agreements of how countries ought to conduct. The problem is that the evaluation and enforcement mechanisms are not very good, so those with the power to do so pick and chose according to their interests.

And if you think US does not have interest in bombing Syria, just wait another week or few and watch the politics of it unfold - not all lobbies are created equal, and the more powerful ones are on the side of bombing.

My point is that he does not exactly have popular support to launch any military action at home or abroad. The only person that seems to be driving it is him, maybe France, and yet he wants to tell us that its not HIS idea. If you want to lead the country or the world to war, then LEAD. Don't tell me its my plan. And as Glen points out, no one believes the use of these weapons is a good thing. But the solution that is at hand is that of the President....the same President who previously droned on and on about sanctions for accomplishing matters such as this. The public is not in favor of it in general and neither am I until I can see clear national interest and a plan that serves that interest. This is symbolism over substance at this point. I don't think I'm twisting anything. In my assessment he has continually demonstrated poor leadership and avoids any accountability. This is another example of that. First he "drew a line in the sand". When it was crossed, he has promised a response, but not too big of a response. He's said it won't last too long and won't involve any men on the ground. He said its coming but hasn't decided when. He said it must happen but then stepped back from that and said he has to consult with Congress. Then he said he didn't really need Congress and could do it anyway. And now its not even his idea because its the international community, the American people (who currently oppose it) and Congress. All the while he's appealed to everyone's emotions by emphasizing the suffering of children yet has avoided any discussion about national interest or making any promises to SECURE these weapons so that they can't be used again. And this is our LEADER? No, I don't think trying too hard to twist this one way or another.

It's a matter of degree - yes it's bad, but how bad? Is it bad enough to warrant a punishment, what kind? Words are easy and completely useless when they are not backed up by action.

This isn't the first case that chemical weapons have been used since most of the world agreed they shouldn't be, and that has gone unpunished in the past.

From what I remember on this matter Obama said off-script that if it happens, US would not let it go unpunished this time, and eventually he had to take that back or live by it.

The thing is that no matter what positions he took/will take it will be denounced as bad by those who have predetermined that everything he does is automatically bad. Just as there are plenty of the same type kool-aid drinkers on the opposite ideology who would defend everything he does as 'the right thing to do'.

But the truth is that it's a complicated geopolitical problem, and there is simply no 'good option' - never has been and probably never will be. In this environment it seems that Obama is doing what any smart person would do - take the politically savvy path. At the end of the day US is not a dictatorship, so why should he take all the negatives of a bad situation that he has very little control over?

I for once like what he does - let the US congress and UN take an explicit position one way or another, and then he can either go with it/them and share the positives and negatives, or go against with all the consequences. Letting everybody else off the hook is just plain stupid.
Bush didn't go to Iraq on his own either - he got authorization from Congress, and that probably cost Kerry and Clinton a presidency.

I guess Cameron did not get the new talking points

He just addressed Parliament and talked about Obama's "Red Line" and the need to back that or the President would lose credibility..


BTW the Senate Committee just ok'd a strike

Originally Posted by gugi

It's a matter of degree - yes it's bad, but how bad? Is it bad enough to warrant a punishment, what kind? Words are easy and completely useless when they are not backed up by action.

This isn't the first case that chemical weapons have been used since most of the world agreed they shouldn't be, and that has gone unpunished in the past.

From what I remember on this matter Obama said off-script that if it happens, US would not let it go unpunished this time, and eventually he had to take that back or live by it.

The thing is that no matter what positions he took/will take it will be denounced as bad by those who have predetermined that everything he does is automatically bad. Just as there are plenty of the same type kool-aid drinkers on the opposite ideology who would defend everything he does as 'the right thing to do'.

But the truth is that it's a complicated geopolitical problem, and there is simply no 'good option' - never has been and probably never will be. In this environment it seems that Obama is doing what any smart person would do - take the politically savvy path. At the end of the day US is not a dictatorship, so why should he take all the negatives of a bad situation that he has very little control over?

I for once like what he does - let the US congress and UN take an explicit position one way or another, and then he can either go with it/them and share the positives and negatives, or go against with all the consequences. Letting everybody else off the hook is just plain stupid.
Bush didn't go to Iraq on his own either - he got authorization from Congress, and that probably cost Kerry and Clinton a presidency.

I've been very clear about my position on the matter so that its not confused with personal distaste for the President. Hence my call for a national interest, something I think should be at the forefront of any military action. Give me that and a solid plan that will achieve the desired results and I'll go along. So far I don't see it. If his managing of it impresses you, ok. It doesn't impress me in the least. I don't call that leadership. And I don't think its too much to ask for that, especially in this situation. We agree to disagree on that. But if there is no good option, I suggest doing nothing if for no other reason than the real possibility that we will give aid to the wrong group of people. If politics is all he has to offer, then he should not have made any promises about having anything go unpunished. He doesn't have to take the negatives of a bad situation. He can choose to stand down.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

If you want to lead the country or the world to war, then LEAD.

I thought you were kind of big on the US constitution, what happened with that?

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

no one believes the use of these weapons is a good thing.

You're trying to assign some sort of inconsistency to Obama just because you have already decided everything he does is bad. Yes, there is no clearly spelled out 'if so and so determines that this group has used chemical weapons, then so and so has to punish them by doing this and this'. The situation, as I already pointed out, is that almost all of the world has officially signed on that the use of chemical weapons is terrible, and it should have severe consequences, but no detail of how to go about it is spelled out.

You can't blame one person for dealing with a mess he did not create. Your own position seem to be 'yes that mess is bad, that's too bad, I don't really care about it' and that's not exactly looking good either.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

no one believes the use of these weapons is a good thing. But the solution that is at hand is that of the President....

Like it or not, Obama is the president of USA, so he gets to decide how to run the executive branch of government, including the military, so this is precisely as it should be. Whether he needs authorization from Congress to run his 'solution' is apparently an open debate, given the established practice over many decades, but at this point he is seeking such, so you should be happy about it.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

The public is not in favor of it in general

A lot of americans seem to live in a Disney world, where there is perfect good and perfect evil and with some magic the good wins every time. But there is no magic here. Somebody gassed thousands of people, the US administration claims Mr. Assad is responsible and that he should be punished, but most americans expect this to happen magically at no inconvenience or cost to them whatsoever. So Obama is proposing the least costly solution which may be palatable to all these people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

I think being wary of getting into a war is a really, really good thing - it's sad that the americans got to this point only after paying the high cost of two wars over the last decade. But, what is currently happening - a political debate on what the country should do - is a very good thing in my view.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

and neither am I until I can see clear national interest and a plan that serves that interest

I think if you don't understand the geopolitical interests of US, you could pick up some books or pay attention to the people in charge of handling those interests, instead of expecting to learn something as complicated as this from the soundbites and talking points of a politician, even if he is the president of the USA. Or as I said, just pay attention to the politics over the next few weeks.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

But if there is no good option, I suggest doing nothing if for no other reason than the real possibility that we will give aid to the wrong group of people.

Doing nothing is one of the bad options. If you haven't heard yet why, you should soon, as the AIPAC among others gets their act together.

Originally Posted by gugi

I thought you were kind of big on the US constitution, what happened with that?


You're trying to assign some sort of inconsistency to Obama just because you have already decided everything he does is bad. Yes, there is no clearly spelled out 'if so and so determines that this group has used chemical weapons, then so and so has to punish them by doing this and this'. The situation, as I already pointed out, is that almost all of the world has officially signed on that the use of chemical weapons is terrible, and it should have severe consequences, but no detail of how to go about it is spelled out.

You can't blame one person for dealing with a mess he did not create. Your own position seem to be 'yes that mess is bad, that's too bad, I don't really care about it' and that's not exactly looking good either.


Like it or not, Obama is the president of USA, so he gets to decide how to run the executive branch of government, including the military, so this is precisely as it should be. Whether he needs authorization from Congress to run his 'solution' is apparently an open debate, given the established practice over many decades, but at this point he is seeking such, so you should be happy about it.


A lot of americans seem to live in a Disney world, where there is perfect good and perfect evil and with some magic the good wins every time. But there is no magic here. Somebody gassed thousands of people, the US administration claims Mr. Assad is responsible and that he should be punished, but most americans expect this to happen magically at no inconvenience or cost to them whatsoever. So Obama is proposing the least costly solution which may be palatable to all these people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

I think being wary of getting into a war is a really, really good thing - it's sad that the americans got to this point only after paying the high cost of two wars over the last decade. But, what is currently happening - a political debate on what the country should do - is a very good thing in my view.


I think if you don't understand the geopolitical interests of US, you could pick up some books or pay attention to the people in charge of handling those interests, instead of expecting to learn something as complicated as this from the soundbites and talking points of a politician, even if he is the president of the USA. Or as I said, just pay attention to the politics over the next few weeks.


Doing nothing is one of the bad options. If you haven't heard yet why, you should soon, as the AIPAC among others gets their act together.

Seems we pretty much agree other than one point...


You believe that Obummer is seeking approval because that is what the Constitution says (it doesn't) and it is a good thing to do according to the American people (it is) ...

I think he is seeking approval because it is politically correct and fast polling and the lack of British support told him he was making a bad political move on Sat,,, nothing more

Originally Posted by gugi

I thought you were kind of big on the US constitution, what happened with that?


You're trying to assign some sort of inconsistency to Obama just because you have already decided everything he does is bad. Yes, there is no clearly spelled out 'if so and so determines that this group has used chemical weapons, then so and so has to punish them by doing this and this'. The situation, as I already pointed out, is that almost all of the world has officially signed on that the use of chemical weapons is terrible, and it should have severe consequences, but no detail of how to go about it is spelled out.

You can't blame one person for dealing with a mess he did not create. Your own position seem to be 'yes that mess is bad, that's too bad, I don't really care about it' and that's not exactly looking good either.


Like it or not, Obama is the president of USA, so he gets to decide how to run the executive branch of government, including the military, so this is precisely as it should be. Whether he needs authorization from Congress to run his 'solution' is apparently an open debate, given the established practice over many decades, but at this point he is seeking such, so you should be happy about it.


A lot of americans seem to live in a Disney world, where there is perfect good and perfect evil and with some magic the good wins every time. But there is no magic here. Somebody gassed thousands of people, the US administration claims Mr. Assad is responsible and that he should be punished, but most americans expect this to happen magically at no inconvenience or cost to them whatsoever. So Obama is proposing the least costly solution which may be palatable to all these people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

I think being wary of getting into a war is a really, really good thing - it's sad that the americans got to this point only after paying the high cost of two wars over the last decade. But, what is currently happening - a political debate on what the country should do - is a very good thing in my view.


I think if you don't understand the geopolitical interests of US, you could pick up some books or pay attention to the people in charge of handling those interests, instead of expecting to learn something as complicated as this from the soundbites and talking points of a politician, even if he is the president of the USA. Or as I said, just pay attention to the politics over the next few weeks.


Doing nothing is one of the bad options. If you haven't heard yet why, you should soon, as the AIPAC among others gets their act together.

I find no inconsistency with my desire for Constitutional gov't and the President's lack of leadership. Great, he's consulted Congress. And yes, its debatable that its necessary....depending on the situation. But if you are going to ask for permission, try to be convincing in your argument. Take a firm stand, make a solid case, explain why its in OUR interest to do something about it. To have the title as Commander in Chief and lack this fundamental leadership is pathetic. I don't think Americans expect Assad to be punished...through magic or anything else. You state the the "yes its terrible but I don't care" point of view is no good? Then YOU commit your resources and men to its resolution. If you think doing nothing is bad option, convince YOUR gov't to engage them. If the rest of the world has concluded that the use of chemical weapons is terrible and their use should have strict consequences, then let the rest of the world step up and do something. I think in this case Americans do not want this cake not to eat it. So if the President is going to commit the people to this conflict, he owes the public its proper justification. If not, then people such as myself will stand by to ensure the proper criticism is handed out.

Here's something else to think about.

The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline | Global Research

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Sorry Mick but ya got a little off there, I am asking a simple question and you are answering by agreeing with me

I don't think we should be involved, BUT if we do need to go into anywhere then why would we without a prize ???? Your words here "Why should you help anyone? Well, historically the US never has helped anyone, unless there has been something to gain from it for themselves"

Again, why should we ???

Mate, I think you might have gotten a bit confused about my stance on the subject. Should a strike be made on Syria? No is my answer to that. "Why should the US help anyone?" was your question, my answer was "When has it ever done so, unless there has been something to profit from it?!" So I suppose the only unanswered portion of your questions may have been "Why should we?" Well, like the other countries in the world like Australia, Britain and other European countries probably a feeling of morality might come into it. You see a neighbour struggling with a task. Do you lean on the fence and watch? Or do you offer a helping hand? Yes if you help it may be for scant or no reward, but then again you might get invited over for a party sometime as a re-payment. You help because you are able to, and because you want people to see what nice people you are.

I, for the most part, am in agree-ance with you.


Mick

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Seems we pretty much agree other than one point...


You believe that Obummer is seeking approval because that is what the Constitution says (it doesn't) and it is a good thing to do according to the American people (it is) ...

No, I didn't say that at all. I said that he is doing the politically savvy thing to do, and it also happens to be a nice change for the country.
As far as what are his motives, I don't think anybody here can tell that, but I suspect that as usual it's a mixture. I also think that motives are secondary if not tertiary in importance to the situation.
I think it's a rather serious matter, and stupid stuff like bastardization of his name seems to me at the very least distasteful in the context of killing thousands of people.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

But if you are going to ask for permission, try to be convincing in your argument. Take a firm stand, make a solid case, explain why its in OUR interest to do something about it. To have the title as Commander in Chief and lack this fundamental leadership is pathetic. ....

I don't know if you just live in a fantasy world where everything is black and white, or your dislike for Obama is so great that nothing is ever going to be good for you, but it doesn't really matter, as you seem to only be interested in spin and opinion and not in logical arguments. By the standard you're setting there's never been and never will be a leader outside of the hollywood movies.

You know when you make an issue of something, like in this case Syria's situation, you can't just walk away as if nothing happened. Unlike many other places where atrocities are the norm, but are being ignored, Syria is strategically important so there was no way it could stay under the radar. And the long-term US policy has put US in a corner, which is now exploited by enemies like Iran, and various religious extremists, rivals like Russia, and China, 'friends' like Israel, and Turkey, and opportunists like the various suni dictatorships.

As far as I can tell Obama is trying to build a coalition both in US and abroad based on that 'chemical weapons are horrible' treaty. May be he will succeed, may be he won't, but if he doesn't then it's either a lack of evidence, or the world community would own up to its hypocrisy and that may end up bringing changes in international politics.

And yes, the gas supply is one of the bigger geopolitical concerns but far from not the only one.